The reporting rates of high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and their human papillomavirus testing and histologic follow‐up results: A comparison between ThinPrep and SurePath preparations

Abstract

BackgroundLiquid‐based cytology (LBC) tests SurePath (SP) and ThinPrep (TP) have largely replaced conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) tests for cervical cytology screening due to higher sensitivity. However, comparison between SP and TP test sensitivity and efficacy in detecting squamous abnormalities is lacking. Our study aims to compare high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) reporting rates, human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity rates, and histologic outcome between these two LBC methods.Materials and MethodsWe performed a retrospective search of the period between January 2014 and June 2017, when both TP and SP were utilized at our institution, to identify HSIL cases and collect the HPV testing and histologic follow‐up results for those cases.ResultsOne hundred twenty‐five HSILs were identified from the 15 382 TP specimens (0.81%) and 93 HSILs were identified from the 25 105 SP specimens (0.37%), a statistically significant difference (P < .0001). The corresponding HPV positivity rates were 95.6% and 89.7% in TP‐HSILs and SP‐HSILs, respectively, a statistically non‐significant difference. Histologic follow‐up showed HSILs or carcinomas were identified in 78% (49/63) of TP‐HSILs and 79% (45/57) of SP‐HSILs, with no statistically significant difference.ConclusionTP demonstrated a higher HSIL detection rate than SP with no significant difference in follow‐up HPV or histologic results.

Review of the Standard and Advanced Screening, Staging Systems and Treatment Modalities for Cervical Cancer

“…This method uses centrifugation and resuspension of the cells in a sucrose density gradient. Gravity is used to transfer the cells to the slide [ 44 ]. However, due to the high technical demand, as well as the costly consumables and equipment, the implementation of the liquid-based cytology test remains challenging in low- and middle-income countries.…”